moved that the House do agree to the Amendments made by the Lords in this Bill.

said, he objected to this Amendment. In describing the Bishop of Aberdeen, Dr. Skinner, the Lords had struck out the word "right" before the word "reverend," as it stood originally in the Bill, so that the Bishop was called simply "the Reverend W. Skinner." He moved to restore the words which the Lords had struck out, because he believed that "right reverend" was the proper and legal designation of a Bishop everywhere.

thought that it would be better to let the Bill stand as it had come down to them from the Lords.

said, he had another Amendment to propose. He did not know what artist in the House of Lords had tried his hand upon this Bill, but he certainly could not compliment him upon his skill. The title of Bishop "of" Aberdeen had been altered to Bishop "in" Aberdeen, and to that he did not object; but he did object to have Dr. Skinner described as an "episcopal" bishop. He hoped there would be no division upon this question. He thought the title of the Bishop should run thus, "the Right Reverend William Skinner, Bishop in Aberdeen, and Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church."

suggested, whether "Primus of the Episcopal Church in Scot- land" would not be the more correct designation.

assented to this view of the case.

wished to ask the Secretary for the Colonies a question of which he had given a general notice. He wished to know whether any reply had been sent to the despatch of the Governor of New South Wales, forwarding the remonstrance of the Bishop of Sydney with regard to the rank and precedence which Earl Grey, by his despatch of January, 1849, had instructed the Governor to give to archbishops and bishops appointed by the Pope of Rome over and before bishops lawfully nominated by Her Majesty?

said, he was not aware till he entered the House that day of the exact nature of the question which his hon. Friend intended to put to him. In the present state of the question, the House would, perhaps, permit him shortly to refer to the despatch to which his hon. Friend had alluded. In the first despatch, that of 20th November, 1847, Earl Grey stated that as Parliament had by a recent act of legislation—the Charitable Bequests Act—formally recognised the rank of the Irish Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops, by giving them precedence after Protestant archbishops and bishops of the Established Church, it had appeared to the Government to be their duty to conform to that rule, and that he had accordingly to instruct the Governor that he should thereafter officially address Roman Catholic prelates by the title of your grace, or your lordship, as the case might be. He thought the House would see that the premises in this passage of the despatch did not exactly lead to the conclusion. In consequence of that despatch the Bishop of Sydney wrote to the Governor, wishing to know whether it was the intention of the Government that the Most Rev. Archbishop Holding should take precedence of a bishop of the Church of England. That letter was forwarded to Earl Grey, and on the 9th January, 1849, Earl Grey sent another despatch to Governor Fitzroy, stating that he regarded the Bishop of Sydney in the light of metropolitan, and that his instructions did not refer to the Bishop of Sydney, who, as metropolitan, was entitled to precedence over the Roman Catholic archbishop. In consequence of that despatch the remonstrance of the Bishop of Sydney, dated 22nd May, 1850, was sent home. In that remonstrance the Bishop of Sydney made some exceptions to the terms in which he had been referred to, and called attention to the fact, that, although as a metropolitan he was to take precedence of Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops, yet that did not apply to suffragan bishops. The despatch on which the question of his noble Friend was founded was received at the Colonial Office on the 4th of January, 1852, shortly before the present Government came into office. No answer had been given by his predecessor (Earl Grey) to that despatch. When he came into office he found that despatch had not been answered; and since then the pressure of business had been so great that up to the present time no answer had been sent to it. His intention, however, was to answer it in a very short time, and to communicate the views of the Government on the question.

trusted that his hon. Friend would be able to state that he did not intend to recognise, in any answer he might send out, such a construction of the despatch of Earl Grey as he had now given.

thought that after the answer he had already given, his hon. Friend could hardly expect him to state anything further.

said, if he had a seat in the next Parliament, he should certainly bring the subject before the House.

begged to ask the right hon. Secretary for the Homo Department, why the privilege of riding down Constitution-hill to the Birdcage-walk was withdrawn from the public?

said, he was very much obliged to the hon. Member for having put the question. The answer to it was a very simple one, namely, that the privilege had not been withdrawn, nor was it intended to be. There had been some misapprehension on the subject. The gates were, it was true, closed on Wednesday evening and Thursday morning; but so soon as the fact was brought to his knowledge on the Thursday morning, he had the matter corrected. He wished the House to be fully aware that no privilege whatever with reference to the parks had been withdrawn from the public since Her Majesty had come to the Throne. Last year a new and temporary privilege was conceded to the public, namely, that of allowing persons to pass through the Stable-yard on horseback. This was to facilitate the going to the Crystal Palace. He begged to inform the House that that privilege was not intended to be withdrawn. Advantage, however, bad been taken of the privilege, and certain carriages had gone up and down Constitution-hill without permission. Instructions were therefore given to stop carriages that were found to be driving up and down; but no instructions had been given to prevent persons on horseback from going to and fro, as before.

said, he was desirous of putting a question to the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in consequence of very considerable apprehension that had been induced in the minds of a number of persons engaged in the manufacture of Chicory, by a statement made recently by a noble Lord (the Earl of Derby) in another place. The question he had to put on behalf of those persons, who had invested considerable property in the cultivation and manufacture of Chicory on the faith of the Treasury Minute of August, 1840, was, whether it was intended by Her Majesty's Government to make any and what alteration in the Treasury Minute, and whether such alteration would take immediate effect?

The Treasury Minute of August 1840, has not been rescinded; and if it be altered, it will be altered in a way that will not disturb or injure the fair trader.

said, he begged to inquire of the right hon. Secretary of State for the Colonies, if recent information from the Cape of Good Hope represented General Cathcart's policy to be that of driving the Gaikas over the Kei upon the tribes beyond, and occupying their vacated territory; and, if so, what prospects there might seem to be of any remote termination of the war?

begged to state, in reply to the question of his hon. Friend, that the last despatches received from General Cathcart—the first which had been received since the arrival of the general at the seat of war—did announce to Her Majesty's Government that the general had made public in the Colony his intention to drive the Gaika tribes across the Kei, and to occupy their territory. Her Majesty's Government regarded this as one of those steps which were considered necessary by General Cathcart, with the view to bring the war to a successful and early termination, and did not consider it would in any way compromise the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the frontiers of the Cape Colony. In reference to the latter part of the question put by his hon. Friend—whether he (Sir J. Paking-ton) could hold out any hopes or remote prospect of a termination of the war, he could say that the despatches received from General Cathcart did hold out hopes to the Government that the termination of the war was not very distant.

said, he wished to inquire whether the Proviso proposed by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Sir W. Clay) to prevent the erection of shops and dwelling-houses upon private burying grounds that might be closed under this Bill, was to be inserted. He asked that question, because he was informed by a gentleman who was the proprietor of a private burying ground, that he intended to lease that land for building purposes, although used as a place of interment for a great number of years. He (Viscount Ebrington) understood that the Government had assented to the insertion of the Proviso. He would feel it his duty to press the Proviso, if not assented to by the Government.

said, he would appeal to the recollection of every Member of the Committee whether such assent had been given to the insertion of the hon. Baronet's Amendment. On the part of the Government, he (Lord J. Manners) told the Committee that the Government could not sanction its introduction into the Bill; and to that declaration he now adhered.

said, he could corroborate the statement of the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners). Of course, if the noble Viscount (Viscount Ebrington) should persevere with his (Sir W. Clay's) Proviso, he should feel it his duty to support him; but he confessed he felt considerable difficulty with respect to it. He thought it would be a most extraordinary violation of public decency, if private burial grounds were to be let for building purposes.

said, he should move the Proviso, as an addition to Clause 2.

said, he should certainly regret if the closed burial grounds were to be let out for building purposes. In a sanitary point of view, it would be unfortunate if these spaces were blocked up with buildings.

said, he was of a similar opinion. It would be far better if the closed graveyards were planted with trees than with houses.

said, he thought it would be better not to adopt the Proviso. The owners of these burial grounds were not at present prevented from building over them by any positive law, but they were prevented from committing such an act of desecration by a feeling among the public, which might be considered higher than the law. In his opinion they would do well to allow public feeling to continue to deal with the matter. The compensation in question could not be paid out of the public taxes, and he believed that great opposition would be offered to any attempt to take the money out of the poor-rates.

said, that although he had himself suggested the adoption of the Proviso, he could not help thinking that there would be no use in pressing it to a division.

said, he had proposed to compensate owners out of the Consolidated Fund, because he knew of no other fund out of which compensation could be taken. He did not think that parishes would agree to give compensation out of the poor-rates, and he trusted the Proviso would be withdrawn.

said, he thought the charge of the compensation might be spread over the whole of the metropolitan parishes.

said, he felt bound to support the Proviso, and to guard against the possibility of so irreverent a proceeding as a desecration of those burial grounds.

said: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity of stating the general course I mean to pursue with regard to these Amendments. The Bill, in my opinion, has not been at all amended or improved in its progress through the House of Lords. On the contrary, I think that the alterations which have been made in it tend, to a certain degree, to diminish the efficiency of the Bill. They will, in my opinion, throw obstacles in the way of inquiry into corrupt practices at elections. Now, with regard to the first of these Amendments, it is proposed by this Amendment that, instead of an address proceeding from this House alone for a Commission of Inquiry, it shall be necessary for a joint address of both Houses of Parliament to be presented to the Crown, as a preliminary to the issue of a Commission. It certainly appeared to me that, as the whole of the Bill was directed to the promotion of inquiry into corruption at elections, it would be sufficient for the House of Commons, after an inquiry by a Select Committee, to proceed by Address to ask the Crown to appoint Commissioners to inquire into an alleged case of corruption at an election. But, according to this Amendment, it will be necessary that the House of Lords should, in the first place, consider our evidence, and say whether there is a case for any further inquiry. Thus there are to be two inquiries before you reach the real and effectual inquiry. That is to say, you must go before two grand juries before you can proceed to try a case. It does appear to me that this will rather be an obstacle to, than a furtherance of, inquiry. I should have thought it likely that the House of Lords would have objected to have been brought at so early a stage to decide on the evidence taken by us, for I conclude that they will not propose that there should be an additional Committee appointed by themselves. My noble Friend the Marquess of Lansdowne had no opportunity of informing me as to the nature of the Amendment to be proposed. He informed me that he was taken by surprise, and that no intimation was given to him that any such Amendment would be proposed. He objected to it as much as I could do, as considerably diminishing the efficiency of the Bill. With regard to the other Amendments, I do not think they are of much importance as that which I have stated. It is true that the House of Lords by subsequent Amendments have decided that it shall not be in the power of a Commission to inquire into any allegations retrospectively, if there have not been proved to have been corrupt practices at the election with respect to which they are ordered to inquire. It will appear at first sight that if the last election, for instance, took place by compromise, in which there might be no opportunity for corrupt practices, then all the corrupt practices which prevailed for a series of years previously would pass without inquiry. But that is not the effect of the Bill as it has been sent down to us, because, although the Select Committee of the House of Commons would of course make inquiries with respect to the last election, unless otherwise directed, yet, if it was desired that the inquiry should be made with regard to corrupt practices at any election, the inquiry, of course, need not be directed to the last election. There may have been, for instance, most corrupt practices at the general election; almost every person in the borough may have been bribed; there may have been subsequent elections at which there has been no bribery or corrupt practice whatever; but that would not prevent this House, if they thought fit, to appoint a Committee of Inquiry into corrupt practices which had prevailed at the time of the general election. And, therefore, I do think that this Amendment would not be so injurious to inquiry as at first sight it would appear to be. There is another Amendment, namely, the omission of the word "treating," as one of the offences which are to be inquired into under this Bill. The Bill was intended to apply generally only to bribery and corrupt practices, and not to treating. It would be necessary, if there were such gross treating as to affect the character of a borough, to have a special Bill with respect to it. In some cases, the treating is of so small an amount, that it is obviously simply for the purpose of refreshing parties who may have come from distant districts to record their votes, whilst in other cases it is so gross as to be as corrupt as bribery. I do not think it unreasonable that the House should retain the power of proceeding, in such special cases, by Bill rather than by Address. I conceive, upon the whole, that the Bill, even as amended, will be a very considerable advantage in the way of prosecuting corrupt practices and brihery in boroughs. If we rejected these Amendments, with a view of having the Bill restored to its original state, the Bill might be lost for this Session; and therefore, while I lament that these changes have been made, which do not in any way improve the Bill, but, on the contrary, make it less efficient, I propose that we agree with the Lords' Amendments in every respect.

said, he would certainly bow to the decision of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, and agree to the Amendments which the Lords had made in the Bill; but he must say that the Bill, while it would still be efficient to a certain extent for the purpose of putting down corrupt practices at elections, had yet been most materially mutilated by these alterations. Her Majesty's Government, while the Bill was in the House of Commons, gave, as the House understood, their cordial assent to the passing of the Bill. No such alterations were then proposed: if they had been, there would have been an opportunity of discussing without endangering the passing of the Bill. This Bill had been the means of furnishing another instance of what he might term the duality of organs of Her Majesty's Government; one thing was said by the Government in the Commons, whilst the very opposite was said by the Government in the Lords. In the Commons the Bill was allowed by the Government to pass without much comment; but when it reached the Lords, the Government were parties to a most important alteration in it. Hon. Members might not be aware of the full effect of the alteration made: it was this, that although a Committee of that House might report that corrupt practices existed in a particular borough, and that it was desirable that further inquiry, by means of a Commission, should be made in such borough, and the House would consequently be prepared to vote an Address to the Crown praying that such Commission should be issued, they would be prevented from going back to the last election, or to any election, however corrupt might have been the practices, if at any time there should have intervened a single pure election. Now, he would take as an instance the borough of Harwich. There had prevailed a very extensive and general opinion, that systematic and general corruption prevailed at the elections in that borough. He did not say that it was so; he merely alluded to the prevalent opinion upon that subject for the purpose of his argument. That House, in the course of the last Session, suspended the issuing of a new writ, on the occasion of a vacancy occurring in the representation of Harwich. And why? Because it was believed that the state of that borough was so corrupt, that it would not be consistent with propriety and with the dignity of that House to issue a writ for a new election until some further inquiry had been made into the state of the constituency. It so happened, however, that in the present Session of Parliament an opportunity occurred for the issue of the writ. It was moved that a writ be issued, and a writ was issued accordingly. His hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, who had long been seeking an opportunity to get into Parliament, went down to solicit the favour of the constituency of Harwich. His hon. and learned Friend was returned without opposition for an expiring Parliament, and, as one did not pay one's Swiss unless the Swiss did service, there was no doubt that no votes were paid for where no votes had been given. The hon. and learned Solicitor General, however, had not thought fit to maintain his connexion with Harwich longer than he could obtain another seat, and he had been returned by Suffolk as a Protectionist; whereupon another hon. and learned Gentleman, who had been for a long time seeking a constituency in Ireland, appeared in his place and was elected for Harwich. At the last two elections for Harwich there was no opposition, and consequently no corruption; but it was quite possible that at the ensuing election there might be a contest, and that corrup- tion and bribery might then be as rife as ever; and if so, would anybody tell him that the inquiries of the Commission that would be appointed ought to be limited simply to the proceedings at that particular election. No instance had ever occurred of Parliament having disfranchised a constituency on account of the corruption prevailing at one single election. In order to the disfranchisement of a borough, it was necessary to prove that the corruption there prevailing was long established, systematic, and inveterate; but if this Bill were passed, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove such a charge against any borough, however profligate, for it would not be permitted to refer to the proceedings at any preceding elections. It was his decided conviction that the Amendments of the Lords had spoiled and mutilated the Bill to a very considerable extent, and it was greatly to be deplored that the Government should have incurred before the House and the country so serious a responsibility as was implied in the sanctioning of such Amendments.

said, he was rather surprised at the concluding observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman, as well as at the commencement of his speech. The hon. and learned Gentleman attacked the Government for making alterations in a Bill which did not originate with them. It was not dealt with as a Government Bill either in that or in the other House of Parliament. The Government supported the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell) in carrying the Bill through that House, except in reference to one Amendment, which was substantially the same as that which had been since adopted by the House of Lords. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Government supported the Bill in one House of Parliament, and assisted in mutilating it in the other House. Was it the hon. and learned Gentleman's doctrine of the Constitution, that an independent Member of the other House of Parliament had not the power of proposing an Amendment which he thought just, and that the Government had not the power of agreeing to it if they thought it reasonable? Yet that was exactly what had taken place in the House of Lords. The Amendment as to the joint Address was proposed by a noble Lord who was not a Member of the Government, and it was only adopted by the Government, not originated by them. The constitutional doctrines laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman were certainly new. He would go further, and say that even the constitutional doctrines propounded by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) were not quite what he should have expected from one whose authority was so high on questions of this kind; advocating, as the noble Lord always had done, the rights of the House of Commons. He would undertake to say that, with regard to these Amendments, they took away from the Government an enormous power of disfranchising boroughs which might be opposed to them. The majority in that House generally supported the Government; and if the Bill had remained as it stood originally, it would have been in the power of the Government to appoint Commissions independently of the House of Lords, in order to institute inquiries with respect to any particular borough against which they cherished a dislike. He was perfectly confident that if such a Bill had emanated from a Tory Government in former times, the Whig Opposition would have been the very first to have said that they would not arm the Minister with a power like this, which may be exercised to the detriment of the House of Commons. He had made these preliminary observations, which he was sure were just, in reference to the constitutional doctrines laid down by the noble Lord and by his late Attorney General. He would now ask the House to calmly examine with him, clearly and temperately, the Amendments made by the House of Lords. The first Amendment was to the effect that the Address to the Crown should be made by both Houses, instead of one only. The second Amendment struck out the word "treating" from the operation of the Bill; and the third provided that when a borough was found by the Report of a Committee to be corrupt, the Commissioners should not have a retrospective power of inquiry for ten or twenty years. With regard to the first Amendment, that there should be a joint Address from the two Houses of Parliament, if it were not the case that Parliament was going to arm the Commissioners with greater powers than were possessed by any Court of Justice, he should have said that an Address from one House would have been sufficient. But, considering the enormous powers that were to be entrusted to the Commissioners, he thought Parliament ought to proceed with great caution, and that the House of Lords, as well as the House of Commons, ought to have a voice in an Address to the Crown to issue such a Commission. It must be remembered that there were only two precedents in modern times of inquiry by Commissioners—the cases of Sudbury and St. Albans. The enormous powers invested by the Commissioners were never conferred upon the presentation of an Address from the House of Commons, nor was any attempt of the kind ever made. A Bill was passed for that purpose. The hon. and learned Member opposite said that the joint Address would impede inquiry; but it should be recollected that an Address was carried by a vote, and he did not think that much time would be lost in procuring a joint Address from both Houses whenever it was necessary. As to the omission of the words "treating" from the Bill, the noble Lord did not seem to object very strongly to it; and if his (Mr. Walpole's) recollection served him right, it was an interpolation in the original Bill. With regard to the retrospective operation of the inquiry to be made by the Commissioners, the Government contested this point very much before the Bill went up to the House of Lords; and he must say, that if the inquiry were permitted to go back to any period, no borough in the Kingdom would be safe from being attacked by a majority of the House of Commons merely because it was opposed to their way of thinking. It ought to be assumed at this moment, on the eve of a general election, that no corrupt practices had been carried on which would justify such an inquiry, and, if so, there was no necessity for any inquiry of the kind.

said, that he had understood from the usual sources of information that the Prime Minister had moved these Amendments in another place. Perhaps, as the House were under a false impression, the right hon. Gentleman would inform him who the independent Peer was who had moved them. [Mr. WALPOLE: The Amendments were proposed by Lord Redesdale.] But when the Prime Minister first acceded to office he had stated that he warmly approved of this Bill; and at that time it contained no such Amendment as that now introduced. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the late Attorney General, who had asked why this Amendment had not been introduced in that House, and fully discussed there. He (Mr. Duncombe) was afraid that it had been introduced for the purpose of defeating and delaying the Bill; and he certainly was astonished and surprised that the other House had not sought to evade being compelled to join the House of Commons in so disagreeable a duty as the adoption of an Address to the Crown, for inquiring into the corrupt practices of certain filthy boroughs. Their taste might be disputed, but their right could not be denied. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) assumed that from this moment all the corrupt boroughs in the Kingdom would be pure and honest. That was a strange assumption on the face of the evidence taken, but very few years back, with regard to Stafford and Harwich and other boroughs. Were those boroughs pure? The impression existed in some men's minds that there were democratic tendencies in that House, and they had therefore had recourse to this interposition of the House of Lords in order to curb those tendencies. But in the present instance the democratic tendency was to establish purity of election. The question for consideration now was, whether the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) did right in accepting the Bill as it at present stood. He (Mr. Duncombe) wished that the noble Lord would try a compromise with the Lords, for they had been told that the great principle of the present Government was that of concession and compromise. Perhaps something might be conceded or compromised in a conference. But, seeing that they were on the eve of a general election, he thought the noble Lord was right in accepting the Bill, as it would make some of those filthy and corrupt boroughs look about them. He wished also to call the attention of the noble Lord and of the House to the strange anomaly that at present existed under the Controverted Elections Law. In the case of St. Albans, that borough had been disfranchised, but yet the hon. Member (Mr. J. Bell) was allowed to retain his seat. Unless some alteration in that law were made, Members, whose elections might be proved to have been carried by corruption and bribery before the Commissions which the present Bill proposed to establish, would not lose their seats, though the borough might be disfranchised; and after the next general election, there might perhaps be fifty or sixty Gentlemen sitting in that House for disfranchised boroughs. In the case of Sudbury, the electors and the elected were punished together; and he maintained that, for the purposes of justice, the law on controverted elections should be revised, and an end be put to the anomaly he had described. He should certainly advise the noble Lord to accept the Bill, though he was sure that it would not do half the good that was anticipated from it.

said, that the hon. and learned Member for Southampton (Sir A. Cockburn) was wrong in supposing that the Bill had passed through the Commons without opposition, for it would be in the remembrance of the House that he (Colonel Sibthorp) gave it from first to last an uncompromising resistance, believing it, as he still believed it to be, a most unchristian measure, and one which involved a moan and dastardly attack on the constitutional rights and privileges of the people of this country. The Bill was founded on a low, mean, cowardly, unmanly principle, and it was his happiness to reflect that he had opposed it at every stage, notwithstanding that he had never in his life been guilty of corrupt practices. He attributed some blame to the Government for permitting such a Bill to pass, and he was sure that the day would yet arrive when they would acknowledge it to be what he now denounced it to be, namely, an unchristian and unconstitutional measure, disgraceful to the Legislature, and wholly unworthy the spirit of the age.

said, he would have been glad if the House would agree with the suggestion that had been thrown out by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Buncombe); but as that was not likely to be attended with any satisfactory result, he would leave the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) to carry out the measure according to his own views. He did not think they ought entirely to reject a Bill containing so many improvements on account of the Amendments that had been made in the other House. It appeared to him that "treating" was worse than bribery—that was the very worst of the Amendments introduced by the Lords. Many hon. Members in that House would hesitate to give money to a voter, who would not hesitate to throw open public-houses and give them as much as they could drink. Many electors also who would shrink from taking a sovereign, would partake of this eating and drinking. On these grounds he regretted that the question of treating had been treated with so much levity; he would content himself with entering his protest against the Amendment.

said, that what he had stated on a former occasion was, that "treating" might include offences of very dissimilar magnitude, and that it was quite possible that there might be cases of "treating" quite as bad as any form of bribery and corruption, and that it might be expedient to introduce a measure for the express purpose of discouraging such aggravated cases.

said, he regretted to find the House so lukewarm upon this subject, He was sorry also the noble Lord did not decide upon rejecting the Amendment. The bulk of the Members of that House were merely the nominees of the House of Lords; but, as the representatives of the people, they were bound, he thought, to originate all improvements in the constitution of that House with themselves. It would, in his opinion, be better if the noble Lord had rejected the Bill altogether; for be, for one, had anticipated a greater degree of improvement and amelioration at the hands of the noble Lord. He complained of hon. Members in that House denouncing democratic principles. It was only by their diffusion that the progress of the people of this country could be secured.

said, he had objected to the Bill originally, and was glad to find it had been rendered so much more constitutional by the Amendments introduced by the Lords. They heard much of the privileges of that House; but they ought to bear in mind that the people also had rights and privileges, and that they ought not to be lightly violated. Either the House of Lords must be an active efficient branch of the Legislature, or it must be done away with altogether. He hoped they were not yet arrived at that point. The moment the Government opposed the views of the Radical party in that House, they were denounced as favouring the oligarchical body, and attempting to put down the opinions of the people. He (Mr. Hudson) had been sent there as a representative of the people, and he denied that he was influenced by any such motives. He believed the Bill was a mischievous one, and he should be glad to see it rejected altogether; but he was satisfied to receive it with the great improvements made in it by the House of Lords.

said, he thought too much importance had been attributed to the Amendments made in the House of Lords. The only cases in which the Bill would come into operation would be the cases of inexperienced parties, who knew nothing about electioneering trickery, and not being initiated, placed themselves in the hands of agents, and had the misfortune to fall into bad hands. In a case like that, a man who had no friends in that House, was just the man to single out as a victim to show up the virtue of the House. There was nothing in the Bill which would have a tendency to prevent or check bribery and corruption. The Bill was simply devised for the purpose of exposure. Whilst this Bill was under consideration, the old kind of negotiations were still going on. A great number of boroughs had been offered to him, at prices varying from 500l. up to 3,000l. He had never listened for a moment to such propositions; but he knew these things were going on, and that other parties were receiving similar applications. He mentioned the fact for the purpose of showing that Bills of this kind were not calculated to prevent the evils at which they were aimed. Bribery was an aristocratic, and gentlemanly, and respectable offence. The more skill a man brought into play in concealing that bribery, the higher he stood as a politician. So long as the House sanctioned such proceedings, it was quite useless to attempt to put a stop to bribery. The proper way was to disgrace the person giving the bribe; and if every elector taking a bribe were liable to be disfranchised, and subjected to a small penalty, such a regulation would produce a greater effect than a Bill of this sort, which, as he had said, would only be brought into operation in the case of unknown individuals, and where a Solicitor General might be interested in holding up a borough as a model of purity.

said, he was of opinion that the Bill, even as originally worded, was weak and inefficient; but it had been so seriously disimproved by the Amendments of the Lords, that he now regarded it as nothing better than so much waste paper; and he was confident that it was regarded in that light by all other Members.

said, he could not help deeply regretting the course which the noble Lord the Member for the City of London had pursued in reference to this Bill. As a Member of the House of Commons, he could never consent to extend to the House of Lords the right of interference which was claimed by the first Amendment, because he thought that by so doing he should be surrendering a privilege which ought to be defended with the most jealous care. The Amendment introduced in the 6th Clause did away with all the advantage of the Bill, by providing that Parliament should be precluded from inquiring into corrupt practices at any election, if an election free from bribery had intervened. The nature of the Amendments might be judged of from the fact that they had been supported in that House only by two hon. Members, who had had the courage on a former occasion to vote against the second reading of the Bill. The truth was, that Parliament had not been in earnest upon this subject. But they might depend upon it, that at length they would be compelled, by the force of public opinion, to pass some measure which would make it as disgraceful for a rich man to bribe as it was for a poor man to be bribed; and that could only be done by excluding from that House any Member who was guilty of bribery. Feeling that the present measure would be totally inoperative in many cases, he should move, as an Amendment, that that House should not agree to the Amendments which had been added to the Bill.

said, that the Motion before the House being that the Amendments be agreed to, it was only competent for the hon. Member to record his vote for or against that Motion.

said, he could not concur in the censure which had been cast on the noble Lord the Member for the City of London for his conduct in respect to the Amendments, though, for his own part, he must say that he thought they so defaced the Bill that it was difficult to recognise it. He sincerely believed the present measure to be a step in favour of corruption rather than against it.

said, he thought that the observations which had been made during the dicussion that evening must show clearly that it was the opinion of one side of the House at least, that this Bill was very unsatisfactory in its present shape; and that the noble Lord the Member for the City of London had taken a course which, if not very inconsistent, was at all events exceedingly feeble in regard to his own measure. The noble Lord's first proposition had been that, instead of requiring an Act of Parliament for the purpose of instituting an inquiry into the corruption existing in any borough, it should be sufficient for any Member of that House to move for such an inquiry. But the noble Lord, having left office, assented very complacently to an important alteration proposed by the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department; and now that the Bill had come down from that place where no good Bill had any chance of being considered unless there was a strong pressure from without, the noble Lord agreed to the Amendments which had been there introduced. The House of Lords had inserted a proviso that a Commission of Inquiry should only be applied for by both Houses of Parliament. If a Commission had the power of disfranchising a borough, he (Mr. Bright) could understand the propriety of such an Amendment; but as it was, he thought that the right of applying for a Commission might as safely be entrusted to one House as to both, because in cither case the House of Lords would have the power of placing a veto on the disfranchisement of any borough, if they should think the evidence of corruption insufficient. He, therefore, maintained that the interjection of an Address from the Lords as well as from the Commons, before a Commission could issue for an inquiry into the state of any borough, was simply an obstacle purposely placed in the way of fair and honest inquiry, having its origin in the resolution on the part of both Houses to prevent a genuine scrutiny, that must end in laying bare a system of representation which had no parallel in any country on the face of the earth where a representative system existed at all. It was the bounden duty of Parliament honestly to face this question, and no longer to deceive the country with legislative shams, which were of all others the worst.

said, he would not have taken any part in this discussion, if the hon. Member for Ayrshire (Mr. Oswald) had not announced his intention of dividing the House; and in reply to an observation which had fallen from the hon. Member, he (Sir J. Graham) felt bound to say that he thought, though others might have said more, no one had done more in checking corrupt practices at elections or had been more successful in preventing those evils by legislative means, than his noble Friend the Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell). There was this peculiarity about the present Bill that it had been introduced when his noble Friend was in power; but his exertions in checking corrupt practices bad not been limited to the period when he sat on the benches opposite, for he had always exhibited a steady perseverance in his purpose, on whatever side of the House he might be sitting, to which his conduct with reference to the present Bill formed no exception. It had been introduced when his noble Friend was a Minister of the Crown, and it was the only measure which, having been brought forward when be was in the Government, he had from a sense of the public interest proceeded with when in opposition, and had finally succeeded in carrying through that House. He (Sir J. Graham) quite agreed with the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) that the Amendments which had been introduced by the right hon. Home Secretary had materially damaged the measure; but his noble Friend the Member for London had not easily assented to those Amendments; on the contrary, he had protested against them, and it was submission to necessity, and not a cheerful acquiescence, that had marked his proceedings in reference to them. The practical question for them now to decide was this: were the alterations of the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department, and much more the alterations which bad been introduced by the other House of Parliament, of a character that would destroy the usefulness of the measure? He (Sir J. Graham) admitted that they impaired its usefulness exceedingly; but the question they had to decide was whether the Bill was worthless, and should they by refusing the Amendments render it impossible to legislate at all on the subject (luring the present Session? He was most decidedly of opinion that they would act unwisely in rejecting the Bill, notwithstanding the damage it had received; for by passing it they would at least show that they were anxious to take active measures in the next Parliament for visiting with condign punishment every corrupt practice that should be brought under their notice. He quite believed that the House of Lords, when it deliberately weighed public opinion, and saw that it pronounced in favour of a given course of policy, was not disposed to give an uncompromising opposition to measures to the adoption of which their own preconceived opinions might not be favourable. He did not believe that, practically, an Address passed in that House, touching the representation of the people, and founded on evidence taken before a Committee of Inquiry, would fail to obtain the concurrence of the House of Lords. He was, therefore, of opinion that this Bill would still be of value, and would be operative, and, entertaining that opinion, he should certainly vote in favour of the Lords' Amendments; at the same time, he hoped that a division would not be insisted upon by the hon. Gentleman.

said, he concurred in the observation made by the right hon. Baronet. Almost every Member who had spoken had risen to cast a stone at the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell); but he did not believe that any one, not even his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), would have the courage to vote against the Bill. He himself objected most strongly to the Amendments introduced by the House of Lords; but he, nevertheless, believed there was yet great benefit in the measure. He had been too long a Member of that House not to know that it was better to accept measures by instalments from the House of Lords. If they went for everything at once, they would not have the remotest chance of attaining what they desired. He thought that several hon. Members of the House had dealt somewhat unfairly with the noble Lord, more especially as none would have the courage, he believed, of voting against the Bill as at present constituted.

said, he would not, after the observations that had been made, divide on his Amendment.

said, that the Committee were of opinion that the Standing Order passed in the year 1713, which rendered it necessary for any hon. Member bringing forward a Motion on the subject of religion to move it in a Committee of the whole House, should be dispensed with as no longer necessary, and as sometimes leading to considerable inconvenience. The Committee also proposed some other minor alterations in the Standing Orders. With regard to the private business, he begged to observe that the House and the public were under great obligations to many hon. Members, whose names were not very frequently mentioned, for their sedulous and valuable attendance on Committees. As an instance, he might mention that the Committee for investigating the subject of the Water Supply of the Metropolis had sat for no less than forty-nine days.

thought that nothing was more important to the regular proceedings of the House than the simplification of these Orders. He considered that the hon. Member (Mr. W. Patten) was entitled to the thanks of the House for the great attention he had devoted to the subject.

said, he cordially agreed in the praise bestowed on the hon. Member. He, however, was of opinion the Standing Order with respect to a Committee of the House on religious questions should not be altered at present, but should be carefully considered at some future period.

said, he wished to bear testimony to the zeal of the hon. Member, their Chairman, and to the good attendance of the other Members.

, in the absence of his right hon. Colleague (Mr. Tufnell), who had given notice of a Motion for—

"A Select Committee to inquire into the expediency of distributing gratis, under certain regulations, a selection from the Reports and Returns printed by Order of the House of Commons, amongst the Literary and Scientific Institutions and Mechanics' Institutes throughout the United Kingdom,"—

said, that it would be idle in the present state of the Session to press the Motion. He desired, therefore, simply to call the attention of the Government to the subject. He believed that the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer was not unfavourably disposed to some distribution of political information of this character among the various institutions of the country. The Parliamentary papers contained very valuable information. When first printed in 1651 they were sent to the sheriffs of counties for the information of the people, but that practice was stopped by Mr. Secretary Jenkyns in the reign of Charles II. More than seventy of the Mechanics' Institutions at present in existence numbered more than 300 members. To all of them the information contained in the Parliamentary Reports and Papers was not accessible. It would be advantageous if the Printing Committee were to receive powers to make such a selection of Parliamentary Papers as was desirable for the purposes of distribution. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would give the subject his attention during the recess.

said, he cordially supported the request of the right hon. and learned Master of the Rolls, and con- curred in thinking that the distribution ought to he confided to the Printing Committee.

said, he had been instrumental in carrying a Resolution for the sale of Parliamentary Papers at 1d. per sheet, though perhaps the public were not generally aware that they could procure them at so low a rate. Now, he was willing to give information cheaply, but not to throw it away; for things given away were too often regarded as of no value. He wished, then, to have a Committee appointed on this question, and that the House ought not to settle it too hastily. It was not generally known that persons might get any paper they wished at the rate he mentioned, and send it by post at a very trifling expense.

said, he thought the suggestion made by the right hon. and learned Master of the Rolls was one well deserving the attention of the House, but to carry it into effect required much more consideration than had yet been given to the subject. He did not think, with regard to the distribution of the Parliamentary Papers, that it was sufficiently well known how easily the publications of that House could be obtained, and it might be advisable at once to circulate that information, giving some idea what was the nature and cost of those publications. Every Member of that House would know that they formed a very important branch of national statistics. The variety and extent of the subjects embraced in the pages of those publications could not be exaggerated, and he was convinced if they were more known they would redound both to the honour of the House and to the advantage of the people.

said, he had that day received from Tasmania a Copy of Resolutions passed by the Legislature of Van Diemen's Land, which he thought of very great importance, looking to the contentment and satisfaction of the colony. The Resolutions stated that the colonists had from 1844 to 1851 been constantly petitioning the Government to discontinue the transportation of convicts, and that the population comprised 70,000 persons, and 20,000 of them were convicts, the expense of maintaining whom was taken from funds that ought to be devoted to improvements in the Colony. The colonists wished to be entrusted with the management of their own affairs, and asked that no more convicts should be sent out, and that the expense of the convict establishment should be borne by the mother country. He wished, therefore, to know if the Government had received any intimation of the Resolutions to which he had referred, and to express his hope that they would take steps to remove the causes of complaint which they stated?

, in the absence of his right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, said, he believed that the Resolutions in question had been received by the Government, and that he had no doubt they would meet with the attention they deserved.

said, that in the absence of his right hon. Colleague (Mr. M. Gibson) he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question relative to the subject of a reduction in the rate of postage between this and foreign countries. The project to which he alluded was generally known by the name of the Ocean Penny Postage, but which was not to interfere with the charge for internal postage which any other countries might choose to adopt. The emigration now going on from this and other countries rendered this subject more important than it had been before; and with regard to Ireland, he thought that more than one-third of all the letters that crossed the Atlantic between Great Britain and America were connected with Ireland—a very remarkable circumstance; and when a large proportion of our population was settling in other countries, it was desirable that the greatest possible communication should be allowed, looking to the effect of such friendly intercourse in strengthening the guarantees for international peace. His right hon. Colleague, therefore, wished him to give notice in his behalf, that if he should be, as there was some hope that he would be, in that House in another Session, he should bring this question before the House, either by direct Motion, or by moving for a Committee of Inquiry. And he would only ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite, if he had any time during the recess to bestow on such a subject, whether he would be good enough to turn his attention to it, as many petitions had been presented in favour of the project, which he believed was one that concerned the comfort and social intercourse of a large class of our fellow-countrymen. And if the Ocean Penny Postage system were adopted, he believed that the immediate loss to the revenue would be as speedily made up by the increase of correspondence as it had been in the case of the establishment of the present internal penny postage system.

said, that the recess, he feared, would be very much occupied; but the Government would endeavour to consider the Ocean Penny Postage project, as well as the discontent of Tasmania relative to transportation.

said, that he wished to refer to some observations which had been made last night by a noble and learned Lord in another place, and which appeared to bear personally upon himself. He was sure that nothing could have been further from the intention of that noble and learned Lord than to make a personal imputation, or to state anything which he did not think could be fully and completely borne out by the facts of the case. He was sorry that the noble and learned Lord should have made statements which were so completely, although, of course, unintentionally, erroneous. The noble arid learned Lord's statement was made in relation to the Suitors in Chancery Relief Bill. The noble and learned Lord was reported, amongst other things, to have said that this Bill restricted the issue of injunctions to the Master of the Rolls. He (the Master of the Rolls) presumed that this remark must be a misreport, because it had no reference to anything in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord was then reported to have said, "Who received the fees? The Secretary of the Master of the Rolls!" Now the fact was that by this Bill it was provided that no fees were to be received in future by the Secretary or any other officer of the Master of the Rolls. The noble and learned Lord was then stated to have said—"At whose suggestion was it passed through the other House? At that of the Master of the Rolls!" He begged the attention of the House to the fact that he (the Master of the Rolls) was no party to the introduction of the Bill. He was not a party to the framing it, and he did not introduce it. It was introduced by the late Government, and passed through the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department. The noble and learned Lord was then reported to have said that he wished to call the attention of their Lordships to the unsparing manner in which it dealt with the officers of the Lord Chancellor, reducing them to such a degree that they would hardly be able to carry on their business. "But what did it do with the officers of the Master of the Rolls? It did not touch them at all! No mention was made of them except to make their offices of more advantage. It provided that the Lord Chancellor's Secretary should have an additional clerk; but it stipulated that the salary should not exceed the insufficient sum of 200l. a year. At the same time, it provided that the Secretary of the Master of the Rolls should have two additional clerks at salaries not exceeding 300l. a year." But what really were the facts of the case? There were officers of the Master of the Rolls and of the Lord Chancellor, who were all paid by fees at the present moment. The practice hitherto had been, that the late Chancellor had restricted the receipts of these officers to certain fixed salaries, and this had also been done by the previous Master of the Rolls. The officers under him had received exactly that amount which the previous Lord Chancellor, and the previous Master of the Rolls, had restricted them to, and he (the Master of the Rolls) had made no alteration. This Bill, however, took away all the fees from those officers. If the second clause stood alone, it would have taken away their salaries, and left them without anything; but the Bill also provided that they should be at liberty to apply to the Lords of the Treasury for such compensation as they might be entitled to, and that the future officers of the Masters of the Rolls should receive such salaries as the Lords of the Treasury should think fit to direct. It was obvious that the Bill did not give these officers any greater advantage than they before possessed. Where the Lord Chancellor had fived the salaries of his officers, the House had thought it would be respectful to that functionary to leave those salaries at the' amount he had fixed; but with respect to the Master of the Rolls, it had very properly thought that the salaries of his officers should be fixed by the Lords of the Treasury. As to the statement that the Bill provided that the Lord Chancellor's Secretary should have an additional clerk with the "insufficient" salary of 200l. a year, while the Secretary of the Master of the Rolls was to be allowed two additional clerks at salaries of 300l. a year, the House would he surprised to hear read the passage from the Clause of the Bill relating to this point. The Clause provided—

"It shall be lawful for the Master of the Rolls to appoint a clerk or clerks to be employed in the office of the Secretary at the Rolls, which clerk or clerks shall receive by way of salary such annual sum or sums as the Master of the Rolls shall from time to time fix and determine; provided always, that such annual sum or sums shall not in any one year exceed the sum of 300l."

That was to say, 30l. a year for all the clerks. If there were three clerks, they would only have 300l. a year between them. It was, therefore, inaccurate to say that there might be three clerks with 300l. a year each. The reason for passing the clause was this:—Many thousands of orders were every year drawn up in, and issued from, the office of the Master of the Rolls. The office expenses for the drawing up of those orders were now paid out of the fees received for the orders, and the payment of those expenses had not been provided for before this clause was introduced. The Secretary of the Lord Chancellor had, in fact, nothing to do but to write the Fiats for Commissions. No orders were drawn up in his office. The noble and learned Lord was reported to have stated, that "the Committee upon whose report this Bill was framed had the Master of the Rolls amongst its members," That was true. "It was brought in," the noble and learned Lord continued, "by the Master of the Rolls." That was a mistake. It was not brought in by him (the Master of the Rolls), nor had he been consulted about it by the late or the present Government, and in no part of it had he made an alteration. The noble and learned Lord added, "it passed through the House of Commons under his superintendence." He begged the House to recollect, as he had previously stated, that it passed through the House under the superintendence of the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department. He regretted very much that the noble and learned Lord should not have taken sufficient pains, if this were a correct report of his speech, to correctly ascertain the nature of the Bill; but all the statements contained in his address, as far as he (the Master of the Rolls) was concerned, were incorrect, as he had taken no part in the preparation, or the passing, of the Bill. It would have been more convenient to him, and to his officers, if their salaries had been fixed; but he still approved of the Treasury having control over these matters. He hogged pardon of the House for having detained them; hut he thought he could not with propriety allow these observations of the noble and learned Lord to pass without some remark from him.

said, he much regretted that it was not in his power to enter into the details to which the right hon. and learned Master of the Rolls had referred, and that there was no lawyer at present on the Treasury bench. The right hon. Secretary of State of the Home Department was away on urgent business, hut he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could not allow what had been said to pass without some remark. In answer to the allegations of error made against the noble and learned Lord by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, all that he could say was, that he was perfectly ignorant of the circumstances, although he need not have been, had the Master of the Rolls given notice of his intention to allude to the subject. [The MASTER of the ROLLS: My attention was only called to the report an hour ago.] This, however, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would say for his noble and learned Friend, that he was in his opinion, as distinguished for accuracy as for sagacity and learning, and he would therefore take the charitable view that the observations of his noble and learned Friend had not been diffused with that accuracy with which they might have been. He could not without some notice allow the name of his noble and learned Friend to be mentioned in a tone of reproof in that House, of which he was once so great an ornament; and he could not forget that this year, oppressed as the noble and learned Lord had been with physical infirmities, the brightness and energy of his mind still remained, and had been exercised with great advantage to the public, and (as he must acknowledge) with great assistance to the Government, in passing the measures of Law Reform which they had introduced.

said, he wished to say in allusion to the remarks made by the right hon. and learned Master of the Rolls, that he thought it very inexpedient to refer to discussions in the other House of Parliament. It was contrary to the strict rule of the House, and the observance of the rule was found greatly to conduce to the order of their discussions. But the present case was somewhat different in its circumstances. It was no wonder, however, if the right hon. and learned Master of the Rolls, considering his high judicial situation, felt himself hurt by any imputation upon his public conduct, especially when it fell from so distinguished a person. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of the merits and character of Lord Lyndhurst. He also must claim to speak of Lord Lyndhurst as his friend, and as a colleague with whom he was proud to have served. But, among his characteristics, there was one that peculiarly distinguished his noble and learned Friend, and that was his love of justice; and he was satisfied that, after the explanation that had been given by the Master of the Rolls of his conduct, much of which he knew and could bear testimony to as a witness, his noble and learned Friend would be convinced that the allegations which he had brought forward arose from misapprehension and misinformation, and that when he had read the explanation now given he would be the very first person to retract any imputation upon the Master of the Rolls. He saw in his place the right hon. President of the Board of Trade, who served on the Commission on the Court of Chancery with him, and also upon the Committee from which the Suitors Fund Bill emanated, and he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would agree with him that there was nothing in the course of that inquiry, or in the progress of the Bill, which in the slightest degree sanctioned any accusation against the Master of the Rolls; that while he had borne heavily upon the fees in the Lord Chancellor's Court, he had desired to uphold unduly the salaries and emoluments connected with his own department of justice. Such a charge was most injurious to his right hon. and learned Friend, and he could quite understand his anxiety to clear himself from it. He was quite certain, however, that his explanation would give satisfaction to the public, while it would remove all occasion for misapprehension on the part of his noble and learned Friend Lord Lyndhurst.

said, that, appealed to as he had been, he could not do other than say a few words. It was his privilege and honour to have served upon the Chancery Commission, and he did not recollect any question arising which gave the least reason for the supposition that the Commission looked at all as to where these alterations were to fall. Such a view did not present itself to the minds of the Commission. at all; what they alone considered was, whether the officers were fitly paid, nor was there the least difference of opinion either in the Committee or among the Commission.

said, the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had that day stated, in answer to a question from the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford (Sir W. P. Wood) that the Treasury Minute of 1840 had not been rescinded, but that if it were rescinded it would be so done as not to interfere with the fair traders of the country. Now these words, however, plausible, and smooth, and soothing they might appear, he was afraid would carry dismay to the hearts of hundreds, he might say thousands, of honest traders in this country. He would not attempt to discuss the question now, but he could only say that the trade looked upon any alteration with the greatest possible alarm. He had before him a memorial from the trade to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject. [The noble Lord then read extracts from the Memorial, deprecating any alteration.] Under these circumstances he appealed to the Government, whether, considering that this question received a very full investigation and underwent repeated discussions in that House, which divided upon it twice, and in both cases rejected the Motion of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) for the rescinding of the Minute—he asked if it was right to make such an alteration as this, without giving an opportunity to those concerned in the trade of stating their case fairly, and having it discussed in that House; and whether it would not evince a greater regard for the interests of all concerned if the question was put off till the beginning of the text Session?

said, he could not agree to the principle that a Treasury Minute depended on the Votes of that House. If that were the case, the whole business of Parliament might be stopped. A Treasury Minute was made under the sanction of an Act of Parliament; and if they wore never to make a Minute without the sanction of the House of Commons, that would put a stop to the whole administration of the country. With regard to this particular point to which the noble Lord had alluded, the Treasury Minute had not been rescinded, and if it were it would not leave the law in the same state as it was before the Minute was passed. It would be necessary, of course, that the Minute should be formally rescinded; but at the same time when it was rescinded, the Treasury would give such instructions to the Office of Inland Revenue as would leave the trade in a very different position from what they were in before the Treasury Minute in question was issued. Before the issuing of that Minute a dealer was not permitted to have Chicory upon his premises at all; but if the alterations now under consideration were resolved upon, the trade would be entitled to have any amount of Chicory whatever upon their premises, and to sell it under certain regulations. The change would not be made until the dealers had had time to sell off their stock of adulteed coffee; and when the Treasury Minute was altered, he believed it would be altered in a manner that would not disturb or injure the fair trader.

said, he believed there were many parties who liked Chicory mixed with their coffee; but the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly correct in saying that a Treasury Minute depended upon the discretion of the Lords of the Treasury, provided they kept within the existing law; and it was in their power to make or rescind any such Minute. But there was a Treasury Minute existing for eleven years, founded upon this principle—that whereas previously to the issuing of that Minute it was impossible for an honest dealer, when the prohibition of mixing Chicory and Coffee was enforced—it was impossible for the honest dealer to carry on his trade honestly and fairly. They were met at every step by those who mixed Chicory with their Coffee; and the Treasury, from 1832 to 1840, was overwhelmed with applications and representations from the most respectable classes of grocers in the country on the subject. [The hon. Gentleman read part of a memorial to the Government from certain dealers in Liverpool respecting an Excise prosecution for breach of the Treasury Minute.] He considered that the Government should sanction no interference with traders upon the part of officers of Excise in such cases as that he had just mentioned, for the answer to the memorial stated that the Lords of the Treasury did not think it was a fraud upon the revenue so long as the Chicory paid proper duty. That was a point which he thought the Government ought to look to. He must complain of the Government availing themselves of almost the last day of the Session to make this new arrangement, for he looked upon it as legislating without giving any notice; and all he asked was, that they would leave the question till Parliament met again to discuss and decide upon the matter. It was no light matter to men who had made their establishments on the calculation of a Treasury Minute which had been in force for eleven years; and he thought it would be almost an act of spoliation upon those parties to change that arrangement without giving due notice.

asked, pursuant to notice, the Secretary of State for the Colonial Department whether any reply had been or would be sent to the despatch of the Governor of New South Wales, forwarding the Lord Bishop of Sydney's remonstrance, dated 22nd of May, 1850, against the rank and precedence which, as it appeared from the despatch of Earl Grey of the 9th of January, 1849, explanatory of his circular despatch of the 20th of November, 1847, the Queen's representatives were still constructively enjoined to concede to any titular archbishop or bishop appointed by the Pope of Rome in any British Colony, before the Lords Bishops lawfully nominated by Her Majesty to suffragan sees duly constituted by the Crown therein.

Mr. Speaker, I was not aware till I entered the House to-day of the exact shape in which my hon. Friend proposed to put this question to me. But, now that I have heard him explain the nature of the general notice which he put upon the paper, I will, if the House will permit me, with the view of showing them in what position this question at this moment stands, shortly advert to the despatches to which my hon. Friend refers. The first despatch is a circular despatch issued by Lord Grey on the 20th of November, 1847, in which these words occur:—

"As Parliament has, by a recent Act (namely, the Charitable Bequests Act), formally recognised the Irish Roman Catholic Prelates by giving them precedence immediately after the Prelates of the Established Church in the same degree, that is to say, as Roman Catholic archbishop and bishops will, by that Act, take rank immediately after Protestant archbishop and bishops respectively, it appears to Her Majesty's Government fitting that the intentions of that Act, so far as the recognition of Roman Catholic dignitaries is concerned, should be extended to the Colonies, and I have accordingly to instruct you officially to recognise Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops in the Colonies, by addressing them respectively as 'your Grace' and 'your Lordship,' as the case may be."

It would be observed that—accidentally, no doubt—there was some inconsistency in the language of this circular, and that the premises stated did not lead to the conclusion drawn; and from this peculiarity of the wording some doubt had arisen in the Colonies as to the exact position in which the Roman Catholic Prelates were to be regarded; and accordingly the Bishop of Sydney wrote to the Governor of New South Wales desiring to be informed whether he considered it to be the intention of Her Majesty's Government that the Most Rev. Archbishop Polding should have precedence over the Bishops of the Church of England in that Colony. In consequence of that inquiry having been forwarded by the Governor of New South Wales to Lord Grey, that noble Lord on the 9th of January, 1849, sent another despatch to the Governor, the substance of which was this—that he regarded the Bishop of Sydney in the light of a Metropolitan; and, as metropolitan, he would be entitled to precedence over the Roman Catholic Archbishop. In consequence of this despatch, the remonstrance to which my hon. Friend has alluded, dated the 22nd of May, 1850, was forwarded to the Governor by the Bishop of Sydney. In that remonstrance, the Bishop of Sydney made some exception to the term in which he himself was referred to; but, especially, he made it a matter of complaint that, although he individually, as Metropolitan, was to take precedence above the Roman Catholic bishops, yet that precedence would not apply to the suffragan bishops of Australia. The despatch from the Governor of New South Wales, containing that remonstrance, was received at the Colonial Office on the 4th of January, 1851. From the 4th of January, 1851, to the time of the recent change of Government in February last, no answer had been given to this remonstrance by my predecessor in the Colonial Department. When I came into office last March, I found this despatch containing the remonstrance still unanswered. This brings me to the question put to me by my hon. Friend, in reference to which I can merely say that the pressure of business has been so very great and so continuous since I first came into the office which I now fill, that, up to this time, no answer has been sent to that despatch; but it is my intention very shortly to answer the despatch of the Governor of New South Wales, containing the remonstrance of the Bishop of Sydney, and in that despatch to communicate the views which Her Majesty's Government entertain upon this subject.

I wish to add a very few words in the shape of another question. I trust that my right hon. Friend will be able to state to me and to this House that he does not intend to recognise in such answer such a construction as had been given to Earl Grey's circular. ["Order!"] I am very sorry to trouble the House, but I have put this question more than once, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell me that, in the despatch which he intends to send to the Governor of New South Wales, he will not recognise the instructions given by Lord Grey.

I think, Sir, that after the answer I have already given, my hon. Friend can hardly expect me to give any further answer.

I shall certainly bring the subject before the House again if I have a seat in the next Parliament.